Journal of orofacial pain · 2011
Development and validation of a screening checklist for temporomandibular disorders.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhao Nan Nan, Evans R Wendell, Byth Karen, Murray Greg M, Peck Christopher C
Аннотация
AIMS: To develop and validate a short screening tool for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) from the comprehensive Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) assessment.
METHODS: Complete RDC/TMD assessments of four subject groups (96 TMD; 102 dental pain; 68 headache; 115 no-pain patients) were compared. Classification tree and multiple logistic regression analyses were utilized to develop the tool. To test external validity, a further 54 TMD and 51 non-TMD subjects whose diagnoses had been established by RDC/TMD assessment were reassessed with the new screening tool. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for the screening tool in the validation set of subjects.
RESULTS: A short TMD checklist was developed. This screening instrument had sensitivity of 94.4% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 84.9% to 98.1%), specificity of 94.1% (95% CI, 84.1% to 98%), PPV of 94.4% (95% CI, 84.9% to 98.1%), NPV of 94.1% (95% CI, 84.1% to 98%), and positive and negative LRs of 16.056 (95% CI, 5.346 to 48.219) and 0.059 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.178) in an independent validation set.
CONCLUSION: A short TMD screening checklist with high validity has been developed. This checklist may have good utility in general practice as a primary screening tool for TMD.
METHODS: Complete RDC/TMD assessments of four subject groups (96 TMD; 102 dental pain; 68 headache; 115 no-pain patients) were compared. Classification tree and multiple logistic regression analyses were utilized to develop the tool. To test external validity, a further 54 TMD and 51 non-TMD subjects whose diagnoses had been established by RDC/TMD assessment were reassessed with the new screening tool. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for the screening tool in the validation set of subjects.
RESULTS: A short TMD checklist was developed. This screening instrument had sensitivity of 94.4% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 84.9% to 98.1%), specificity of 94.1% (95% CI, 84.1% to 98%), PPV of 94.4% (95% CI, 84.9% to 98.1%), NPV of 94.1% (95% CI, 84.1% to 98%), and positive and negative LRs of 16.056 (95% CI, 5.346 to 48.219) and 0.059 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.178) in an independent validation set.
CONCLUSION: A short TMD screening checklist with high validity has been developed. This checklist may have good utility in general practice as a primary screening tool for TMD.